Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Funksaw writes "In a political op-ed on his blog, long time Slashdot reader and contributor Brian Boyko (the guy who did that animated Windows 8 video) — now a candidate for state representative — explains how lobbyists from car dealerships successfully banned Tesla Motors from selling cars in Texas. From the article: 'Tesla Motors doesn't just present a case study of why a lack of campaign finance reform blocks meaningful reform on the issues that Democrats care about, like climate change and health care. A lack of campaign finance reform blocks reforms on both the Left and the Right. Here's the big elephant in the room I'd like to point out to all the "elephants" in the room: With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.'"

Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.

Correct! Tesla cars are not banned in Texas. There is one driving around my neighborhood. Yes, I live in Texas.

That said, this is par for Texas politics. I, along with most people I know here, see Tesla and their need for direct sales as a legitimate argument. EV's are not widely available like regular vehicles are, so we need to have a test bed to see how introduction that into the marketplace works. Tesla is that test bed.

Really, this is about stagnant Republican cronyism that keeps Texas from progressing in areas of economic opportunity. There is a LOAD of oil money flowing in Texas right now, and Texas politicians, apparently here anyways, seem to hate upcoming markets. Ironically, that same oil money elected thes idiots blocking this.

I'll take a guess and say the right people were not influenced enough for this to pass. In short, they didn't pay enough, or the right people to get this changed.

I will also say right now I don't see why Tesla does not work with existing high end dealers in Texas. There are several that are extremely reputable that work with a number of high end cars(lotus, maybach) and are specifically able to deal with the clientele that Tesla wants. Recall that the original gliders were supplied by Lotus.

This is really just a fluke of history, like in some states you can't buy alcohol except from the state. I think, even though I agree that in the long run Tesla should be ab

Sure, they'll pay lip service to the idea. But the problem is that Tesla's have very few moving parts. There's no money to be made off of Tesla services. And that's where these guys make their money. So they will use Tesla's to draw people in, but they'll sell something else.

By the way, who cares why? What if it is just because Elon hates TADA? In a free market, he should be able to sell direct if he wants.

I don't know if you read this correctly. I am not talking about buffoons selling the Tesla. I am talking about extremely high end firms who can connect to base that will buy a Tesla. Someone comes into to buy a Mercedes, see a Tesla, and maybe buys it. I have seen this happen. Or maybe when the used market comes up, this provides a trusted venue to buy them. This type of thing happened to me when I was looking for car. Thought I was going to buy one thing, ended up buying a Volvo, though never thought

So there should be "Telsa Service Centers" that connect you with a dealer in OK, LA, on NM, and when you buy your car from the out-of state dealer, the Service Center will inspect it and hold it for your collection. In fact, they'll hold stock for the out-of-state dealers to cut down on delivery time. But they aren't a dealer, that'd be illegal.

I will also say right now I don't see why Tesla does not work with existing high end dealers in Texas. There are several that are extremely reputable that work with a number of high end cars(lotus, maybach) and are specifically able to deal with the clientele that Tesla wants. Recall that the original gliders were supplied by Lotus.

Lotus had to stop selling cars in the US for the most part for about a year IIRC (I guess they're back now). Maybach is dead. That's probably just it: this is not the model Tesla wants.

It's an incredible amount of work to create a dealership program (you have to invent training programs and survey programs and police the heck out of the dealerships, but in terms of customer experience and financial auditing). Tesla is selling cars as fast as they can build them as is.

The Texas government has reversed in the past on car-related regulations that pissed people off - it's fairly responsive to the people when it comes to that. If people want Teslas, the government will act. It will actually be pretty interesting to watch this play out.

Most Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists? Those among the political right who cast the diverse group we know as Liberals into Socialist/Communist box are mocked for their ignorance -- and rightfully so. Yet, those among the political left who cast the diverse group we know as Libertarians into the Anarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist box are applauded, rewarded as is the case here through moderation.

Because the basic assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed. Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud. Hence the ACposter was right, there are 2 kinds of Libertarians.

That is not to say that elements of Libertarian philosophy aren't useful in tempering over-reach by government regulators. For example, I think regulations strictly designed to limit competition such as limits on taxi vehicles should be reduced or eliminated. I think regulations that create undo barriers to entry for trades are unnecessary. For example, the state where I reside wants people who do hair weaving to be licensed as barbers which requires extensive training and apprenticeships. I think beyond the reasonable expectation that persons doing tasks that require "intimate" contact with people should be competent and not be a health hazard, the other requirements are designed as a barrier to entry and result in protected markets that do not function well.

But Libertarians these days spend their time demonizing government on all levels, and not recognizing the role that government does and should play in our society. They do not recognize economic terms like "public good" "excludability" "Rivalrous" to distinguish between markets that can only be public and non-exploitable. Everything to them should be privatized. That is a flawed understanding of economics.

I'm a libertarian and I believe none of those things you attribute to "Libertarians". You're stereotyping and confusing classic libertarianism with the writings of people like Rand.

Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.

Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?

Solving real world problems requires trade-offs, and the extremes are always (ha!) the wrong answer. But view any government power as a negative in the assessment. We want some service or oversight, great, what the least cost way to get what we want, viewing centralized power as a significant cost?

You're confusing that I think with people who don't want the services in the first place, and use "no government" as an excuse. There are very few such people, but they are noisy.

Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.

That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?

I'm also a 'moderate libertarian' here, and oh heck is "There are very few such people, but they are noisy." true.

Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?

Very much so.

Let's look at schools and prisons. Both are something that you can, in theory, privatize. However it's been my experience that while private schools(especially religious ones such as Catholic schools, and I'm an atheist) can often educate a child better for less money, private prisons tend to be a mess. Ergo - private schools are okay, I support vouchers, though you constantly have to monitor said private schools to make sure they start and remain effective. Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...

I think it's because parents concerned enough to send their child to a private school, even profit ones, is a step removed, but they're there more or less constantly to do quality assessment. But I still prefer non-profits(not necessarily religious).

I don't think it's too much to ask that we regularly review various programs for effectiveness. If it's not effective, it should be dropped. If it's not the most cost effective way to do something, why aren't we using them? Not everything is about profit, but look at our prisons - other countries and even some states within the USA have shown that an emphasis on reform, alternative punishments like house arrest & ankle bracelets work and can cut the time you need to toss somebody into prison for by 2/3rds while producing a released prisoner that's 2/3rds less likely to offend again. That's HUGE, and I have to ask: How can we afford to keep paying for our current system?

"""Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible"."""

Some issues here.

First, it is Classic Liberalism. For the lack of a better description Classic Liberalism waned as a political force as implementation of its policies led to the Victorian workhouses. This led to Liberalism gaining a more social approach, leading to Social Liberalism which became the leading faction of Liberalism in the 20th century.

It is Libertarianism (ie. Neo-Classical Liberalism) that is concerned with minimalising government intervention. Libertarianism is basically Classical Liberalism in new clothing.

I find it works best to use "classic liberalism" when talking to those on the left, and "classic libertarianism" when talking to those on the right; otherwise people often dismiss you before even understanding your position. I mostly talk politics with people on the right, so that's the first term that leapt to mind.

What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.

And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.

What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.

And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.

There is an old business adage: "Nothing Succeeds like Success". It breeds corollaries such as "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". (Microsoft, for the younger generation).

A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.

It doesn't need government to get there. Government - with the sometimes exception of local government - actually prefers to avoid dealing with smaller businesses, so you have to be well on your way towards monopoly before you can even start getting governmental favors.

And "moral rules" generally do help people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Even (or perhaps, especially) the ones that seem anti-common-sense. One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive. In the natural world which Darwin formulated his theories on, we have cute fluffy bunnies, delicate pretty butterflies and ape tribes which prosper because some members take care of others progeny instead of breeding themselves.

In a libertarian system they end up being the defacto government and effectively use their intervention to stifle competition. It's feudalism once a generation has passed and social mobility based on merit would cease to happen. Have you got your patron lined up?When the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers to entry for those that threaten to take away their riches it's only human nature for them to protect the livelihood of themselves and their families. Unchecked and you end up with feudalism.I really don't understand why so many Americans want to throw away what George Washington and others fought to give them. I suppose it's a good old American style confidence trick to hide such a thing under a name with "liberty" in it.

the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.

Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists. Corporatists go complaining to the government when their long standing business model is challenged. Look throughout US history and you'll see examples going all the way back to the decline of the railroad empires.

If you are a corporatist it does not mean you want *every* corporation to control the government. It just means you want to be part of the group of corporations that does. In fact it is important that most corporations are losers to concentrate wealth at the top.

A warlord doesn't want democracy. A warlord wants the world to be ruled by warlords. This doesn't mean he wants every warlord to succeed. He wants most to fail, so he can be as near to the top of the food chain as possible.

They do all the time. The problem here is Texas politics, not "republicans". Get a list of Texas law makers, regardless of affliation, and put a check mark next to the ones with interests in car dealerships. That will illustrate the problem very nicely. And you'll see plenty of democrats in the list, my friend.

Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.

Either there's government enforcing at least basic rules about how the market operates (e.g. no "offers you can't refuse"), or there's non-market influences on the decisions of actors in that market (e.g. "I'm bleeding to death, it doesn't matter that the hospital in the next town offers cheaper service").

What Libertarians tend to actually want is the ability for the more powerful private actor to take advantage of the less powerful private actor with impunity. The more powerful private actor has a key advantage: They have a better ability to research and organize alternative transactions. That allows them to control the pricing in a way that the less powerful actor cannot.

For a concrete example, consider farmer Bob deciding whether to sell his corn to Archer Daniels Midland for $4.75 per bushel. Look at his options:- Sell at the offered price.- Not sell at all. That will probably cause him to lose his farm, because without this sale, he doesn't pay off the bank.- Try to sell to someone else. But since there's no one besides ADM who buys corn in his area, the only way Bob could pull this off is to invent his own transport and distribution network, from scratch.So what you have is not a free market, but a ADM-controlled market that is only free to ADM.

The problem is that Libertarians want corporations to be unencumbered by regulations to the extent that they can harm people and the environment without oversight.

The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about (because they aren't Libertarians, and/or they have a vested interest in marginalizing them).

FWIW, unlike Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians are allowed to think for themselves, and don't get beaten with a rubber hose for stepping out of the party line. I will admit, the official party plank regarding economics is a bit antiquated and unrealistic, but hardly the poison-our-food-and-water fre

The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about

And that goes double for Libertarians.

Just in the past week, we've had "Libertarians" support restrictions on abortions, both for and against the Keystone XL pipeline (private property rights, yes!, private property rights for anyone but corporations, no!) and both for and against gay marriage.

Read Reason Magazine for six months if you really want to learn how childish and confused what passes for "Libertarianism" really is. It's the political philosophy of undergrads, and the only reason it has as much currency in the US as it currently does is because some very rich people think they can use it to further erode economic and social liberty. And because it's the political philosophy of undergrads, some very cynical people are manipulating it to create and maintain a feudal system.

History will look back at the early 21st century Libertarianism about the way it looks back on the Utopianism of the late 19th century, another childish and confused political philosophy.

Just in the past week, we've had "Libertarians" support restrictions on abortions, both for and against the Keystone XL pipeline (private property rights, yes!, private property rights for anyone but corporations, no!) and both for and against gay marriage.

I've got a newsflash for you: in any group of people, there are people with differences of opinion. Members of any political party will have some areas of disagreement.

The fact that people who subscribe to (or think they subscribe to) libertarian political philosophy don't always agree with each other doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with that philosophy.

This is like saying that because the only restaurant in town is McDonalds I should suck it up and accept that shit as food. Fuck that, I'd rather keep fighting the good fight and driving to the next town hoping one day my town will get a Taco Bell.

This is a real "no true Scotsman" argument, and comes up a lot with Libertarians who are only starting to become disillusioned. They join for total freedom and sane money policy, then discover that the candidates are mostly tax dodging fatcats who couldn't care less about the people, or think that completely unrestrained corporations will cause the long discredited trickle down economics to finally happen.

You can't claim "no true Scotsman" just because now there are a lot of tea party retards who call themselves libertarians.

I have been a libertarian since 1998. I was a bit naive back then (I was 18 and more of an idealist), but I will not concede that the entire libertarian ideology is reducible to this current crop of tea party retards who don't give a shit about most of the ideals of libertarianism.

The free market has no solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Neither does major league baseball. That doesn't mean that major league baseball sucks. It just means that major league baseball should be in charge of what it is good at and not solving the tragedy of the commons. There is lots of problems the free market doesn't solve. It solves 1 problem which is figure out how much goods and services should cost through supply and demand without any oversight. If you have a different problem then you need a solution beyond just the free market.

Anyone who claims the free market is the solution to everything is an idiot. Anyone who claims the free market isn't a good solution to anything is an idiot.

Any mature libertarian perspective acknowledges the tragedy of the commons. Even the acknowledgement of a limited government is a concession that there is such a thing as a public good that is worth preserving even if it is limited.

It is possible to believe in preserving public goods and still be a libertarian that doesn't want the price of corn to be set by the government.

Yep, that was some fancy talking that did absolutely nothing to address the problem, exactly the sort of thinking you get from Libertarian institutes.

The solution presented is "Don't have commons, designate an owner for everything, and make them responsible for it." Basically, mass private ownership of everything, even the environment. You would have an air baron whom is in charge of the atmosphere and whom you have to pay to use it. Because he owns it, he would want it to be clean as possible and wouldn't allow people to pollute it without paying him. But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today, plus it arbitrarily gives enormous amounts of power to individuals. If you're going to do that, you might will probably want elect them, and if you're electing them, you're basically talking about a government and suddenly it's socialism writ large. If you don't elect them, then you're back to water barons, which is a monumental failure from a socioeconomic perspective.

There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.

There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.

This paragraph is brilliantly insightful, for those of you who can't tell.

No, libertarians argue that the problem is conceptually hard not that it doesn't exist. Liberals generally feel the problem is fairly easy conceptually (just regulate it) but hard politically.

The problem is that there is no one simple answer (as the linked video acknowledges - straight from the mouth of libertarians). Some commons problems are amenable to privatization schemes (land and fisheries ownership - Ronald Coase did a lot of work on this idea) while others work more smoothly based on cooperative communities (Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel for her work on this tactic). Both of these tactics are well respected in libertarian circles because they use locality to solve the knowledge problem.

Where it gets truly complicated is in open-access resources that don't lend themselves to either method (air and water being two common examples). In this area, there may be areas where regulation is necessary but it should try to be as locally and market focused as possible. Which is why libertarians have put a lot of thought behind ways to get pricing into those types of markets. Libertarians like Jonathan Adler [reason.com] have been advocating carbon taxes for years and the entire Summer 2013 [cato.org] issue of Cato's Regulations magazine features deeply researched and well argued cases for implementing carbon taxes and how best to price them for maximum gain at reasonable cost.

I think you are arguing against straw man libertarians rather than real ones.

Libertarians and Republicans frequently call for less regulation. I'm neither, but I still believe I can explain the argument they're making: they don't want complete deregulation, they just want less of a monopoly on regulation. Government regulation is a monopoly on regulation, and regulatory monopolies lead to regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] (basically, corruption), as we've seen all over the US. Private regulation, on the other hand, means something like having insurance companies "internalize the externalities". If you just now took "private regulation" to mean companies voluntarily regulating themselves without any monetary incentive to do so, I agree, it sounds absurd. But that's not what it means.

The canonical example is pollution. The argument against free markets goes something like this: without regulation, companies will pollute the skies and dump toxic waste into rivers, since it is less costly than handling the waste. In other words, the market won't price in the externalities.

The counterargument: if companies did so, they would actually be hurting people--people who breathe pollution are more likely to get cancer, fishing businesses cannot catch uncontaminated fish, etc. These individuals would then have legal standing to sue in court, and have a really good case to boot. If you also had some tort reform such as loser pays + claimants can receive third-party funding for their cases, such claimants could actually win judgments in court, rather than settling out of court for a measly $2k or simply being out-funded into oblivion.

Under this system, companies would buy liability insurance to protect themselves against such large judgments, or else risk destroying their business entirely. (And who is going to invest in that?) As a condition for continued coverage, they would be required by their insurers to submit to regular audits and comply with certain safety and waste handling procedures, etc. If the company won't submit to these regulations, insurers just jack up the rates--it's riskier to insure them, after all. The audits and other compliance are cheaper by design, so companies will go that route.

This system provides a balance between the interests of the companies affected by the regulation, and the people who would be affected without it. Insurers don't want to impose onerous regulations lest the company choose a different, better insurer. But insurers don't want to do too little, else they're liable to be mispricing their insurance and end up losing a bunch of money. And corruption is gone, because there's no sense in letting a company you're insuring change your auditing procedures when you believe that's going to cost you money. Better yet, the regulations put in place are preventative rather than reactionary. While a monopolistic regulator motivated primarily by politics may simply react to events that have already occurred and put in place regulations to ensure they don't happen again, insurers actually have an incentive to imagine the worst-case scenarios and design policy to prevent them in the first place.

Would this work? You decide. But at least get your opponents' arguments straight, first. Otherwise we're never going to get anywhere.

Anytime you put a label on a group, you've lost. Politicians have been developing ways to twist into or out of various labels for millennia. You want an actual debate, talk about the issues, with real data, and ban all labels.

It's how I would say that I used to share an office with Nate, and he liked to ski and drive fast cars, not that I used to share an office with that liberal white guy. In one description, I mentioned some information about him. In the other, I mentioned some labels that will make h

It wasn't a new law that kept Tesla out of Texas. The law that car makers couldn't sell direct to consumers in the state has been there for years. Tesla can sell all the cars he wants in Texas. He just has to get someone to open dealerships just like GM, Ford, Toyota and all the others.

They're not saying that Tesla can't sell their cars in Texas. They're saying that Tesla can't deal them without using a third party dealership.

Its one of the old monopoly laws. Another one would be movie theaters. They used to be owned almost entirely by movie studios. That is, universal, etc would literally own the theater. They broke up most of those relationships and now you have to have separate corporations for many of these things.

Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.

Regardless, I agree that companies should be able to sell their products directly. After all, doesn't Apple have Apple stores that sell apple laptops directly? And then there are all the direct internet retailers. I can buy a computer direct from dell or a pair of socks direct from the gap. And the gap "makes" those socks. They're "gap" socks.

So I agree, the law is dumb. But it is actually very easy to get around it by just dealing with the dealerships instead of setting up your own.

In Tesla's defense, would you willingly let your wares be sold by dealerships that are out to make the most money possible from the customers often with dishonest tactics? Car sales people are among the most despised, least trusted people on the planet. I don't think there are any auto manufacturers that wouldn't kick independent dealerships to the curb if they could.

Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.

$$$$$$$

Dealerships don't work for free. They would either need to add at least $3k to the price of a bottom-end Model S or Tesla would have to eat that cost.

Also, I wouldn't rule out the dealers saying no to electrics on the basis of the lack of maintenance revenue. The stealerships wouldn't be able to charge Tesla drivers obscene rates for oil changes and such.

The stealerships wouldn't be able to charge Tesla drivers obscene rates for oil changes and such.

But sir you batteries will need to be waxed every three months or every 3000 miles, otherwise they will no longer hold charge you warranty will be voided. That's unless you opt for our extended service warranty which comes with free battery waxing and electricity flush ( a small monthly payment applies, but will tuck it in your financing and you will never notice it). We do recommend flushing the electricity of your car at least once every six moths. Stale electricity can get dirty and clog he coils of your electric motor.

As the owner of a Model S I looked in to the battery longevity. The battery pack should be good for a minimum of 8 years and likely considerably longer. From what information I have been able to gather, the cells are good for 3000 full charge/discharge cycles. Being very conservative and giving 200 miles of range per full charge (which is usually a fair amount more) that works out to 600,000 miles.

Plus it has been shown that replacing a battery pack is trivial with an automated system that can replace a battery in about 90 seconds.

The maintenance should be considerably less. The motor won't need an "oil change" for 12 years according to a tech I spoke with at the factory. Tesla has also stated that their goal is to not make a profit on service and maintenance, which is a far cry from the dealerships.

Right now the only way to buy a Tesla is online through their web site. It was a far more pleasant experience than dealing with dealerships trying to get a car in the color with the options I wanted then having to haggle over the price.

The maintenance schedule suggests taking the car in once a year for service. The warranty covers everything, including wiper blades and brake pads. Brakes shouldn't need service since they're hardly used. About the only thing they have to do other than inspections are to rotate the tires, change the cabin air filter and the wiper blades. The only other part that might need servicing periodically is the lead-acid 12v battery.

There are far fewer things to go wrong mechanically with the car considering that there's no transmission (just two gears with a 9.71:1 gear reduction) and an induction motor. As it is, the entire drive assembly can be easily removed and replaced (it takes them under 5 minutes to bolt the whole assembly in place at the factory). There's coolant, but it probably needs changing far less frequently. The AC should be a lot less prone to leaking since there's no engine mounted compressor with flexible hoses. There's no spark plugs, oil pumps, fuel pumps, fuel filters, air filters (other than cabin), EGR valves, oxygen sensors, catalytic converters, etc to wear out. Similarly, there's no oil changes, problems with warped heads, valves, camshafts, piston rings or all the other parts that wear. The only thing that can basically wear is the differential and bearings and the standard suspension stuff.

Dealerships are just a way to insert middlemen where they're not needed, and they're a monopoly by design. Usually you can't put in a competing dealership within a certain distance of an existing dealership unless they sell a different brand of car. That gives dealerships a local monopoly.

Yes, it is manageable, but the irony is that the current system that requires dealerships to sell cars in an attempt to keep costs down by preventing monopoly abuse of car manufacturers would actually cause the price of Tesla cars to go up. That, of course, is because the dealership is a middleman that is out to make as much profit as possible by jacking up the price of the cars. In addition to that, I'm sure Tesla would love to drastically improving the purchasing experience by selling their cars directl

I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:

"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."

"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"

Tesla is not banned from Texas, they are banned from having dealerships. I just test drove (and will probably buy) the Tesla sedan last Friday here through the Tesla showroom at the Domain in Austin. I now have to simply go online and order one, and it will be delivered right here to Austin, Texas. In addition Tesla has an agreement with a local repair shop for any servicing, and they are building a charging infrastructure here in the state. So you can't say they've been banned, only that they have been prevented from having a tradition all in one place solution.

And I find it so amazingly ironic that all of the Republicans in this state who pontificate about the free market and demonize regulation would fight to keep the dealership system. It is exactly the kind of regulation they usually abhor, and prevents the capitalist system from working. The hypocrisy is unfortunately sadly predictable for those on the right in Texas. This is the same group that has passed a voter ID law to suppress the voting rights of the disadvantaged, even though in the last ten years there have only been 4 cases of voting fraud that could have been stopped with the ID law.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, but it _is_ very political. Planet Money had an explanation of the economics of car dealerships and how dealerships and politicians prevent sales directly to consumers.

The issue is that Republicans are liars and at the end of the day are all just homophobic Democrats. Bush was not a conservative, not by any real economic measure, but that is Rove and Ailes fault. Of course when you look at the war-agitprop and unapologetic positions of Democrat leadership then you sson realize that democrats are just hedonist war-mongers. Their common fault is that they all believe that their party can fix what the other party has broken.
I always refer to politics with the same analogy:
It is just like professional wrestling. When the cameras are on and the stage is set they are bitter enemies, smashing each with rhetorical chairs and over-the-top storylines. When the lights are turned down and the crowd goes home, they are all backstage drinking beers and swapping wives.
In the end its because the biggest corporatist-whores are the media themselves, the media that has never known a war that it at first didnt love and cheer-lead for, the media that always implicilty calls for legislative action, the same media that can get caught red-handed in a lie but never apologize or be punished.
#CNNMakesYouDumb

This past weekend I walked by the Tesla store in Houston. I guess one of their employees got a dealer's license or something. I know two people with dealer's licenses, one owns a small dealership and the other sells a few cars a month from his front yard, so I guess it's not THAT big of a deal.

Is it possible for Tesla to franchise out a small Tesla dealership in these states? ie, play by the rules? Perhaps only to the barest letter of the "rules"?

Are they not allowed to set a "no haggle price" model with the dealership? I'm not sure why not, since The Saturn Car company did that. They either allow for a few points for the dealership in a "dealership price" in texas, or they take a few points hit when selling in this model in texas. or both. It would then give them access to those markets.

It really does seem like they're playing chicken, or "ok, if I can't play my way, I'm taking my marbles and going home".

Perhaps they hope to change the system. I would love to see that sort of thing happen.

Did you know that, here, we can go to one of several websites and buy a new car from any manufacturer, usually with a significant discount over list, together with a mandatory manufacturer's warranty that has to be honoured by that manufacturer's service outlets?

So far, nobody's mentioned in the discussion the following angle on the story:

OK. So dealerships don't like being cut out. And they don't like it. Of course not. They're small businesses. They're owned by families, not giant corporations, and those families are terrified that all the rest of the giant corporations will cut them out the way that Tesla does. Is it really so much better when Tesla Corp (or Elon Musk, for that matter) keeps all the profit instead of sharing a small percent with a local family?

I'm not a car dealer. Just thought maybe this was a point worth considering.

Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.

The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right

The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.

There are car dealerships around here (Seattle area) that do "bottom line" or "lowest everyday" prices, but they are still above invoice. Car dealerships will even sometimes sell new cars at below invoice prices, because it's in their interests to move product and they will make that money back on manufacturer discounts, service, etc...

In my opinion, the root of the problem is that dealerships are an additional cost which affects the price of a car, and a good argument can be made that in a hyper-regulat

"Invoice price" is entirely a marketing gimmick to make people think they got a great price these days. It works surprisingly well. It shows the skill of the salesmen when people genuinely believe they bought a car for less than it cost the dealership.

If it's "dishonest" to frame this as "Tesla can't sell cars in Texas" then it's equally "dishonest" to frame it as "Tesla can sell cars in Texas if the follow 'the rules'". Both of those statements are true. Neither tells the whole story. And there's no reason whatever to accept one version over the other.

In 1960 blacks it was true to say "blacks in MS can vote if they follow 'the rules'". Of course "the rules" were desperately unfair both in conception and enforcement so in practice kept blacks from voting. Hence it was also true to say "blacks in MS are not allowed to vote". Just like in the Tesla case neither simplistic statement tells the whole story, but neither is any more "dishonest" than the other, they're just framed from different points of view.

I understand the basis of the franchise laws as they exist to be: Car companies needed to expand in the old days, but lacked the capitol. Franchisees bought the rights to sell cars from a given company, put their name on the door, and started selling Ford, GM, whatever. Once the car companies themselves were in better shape (with cash kicking around) it would have been trivial for them to open their own dealership down the road, then either stop selling cars to the franchisee, or undercut their prices, etc. etc. Without those laws it would have been easy, and economically beneficial, for the car companies to kill their dealer network and replace it with corporate stores once they had the money to do so.

No franchisee has given money to Telsa to start selling their cars, so there's no one who needs those protections.

That's what most Americans don't get. "Liberals" in the US would be conservatives in most other countries. We are so far at the bottom of the "socialist" rating scale that we might as well be eliminated as an anomaly.

Healthcare would be nationalized. Welfare would pay more and have fewer strings attached. Labor rights would be much stronger. Public education would go through at least undergrad level. Community/municipal ISPs wouldn't be banned in any state.

Yep, socialist just like Obamacare, that thing that makes you buy a corporate product just so taxpayers don't end up footing the bill when you go to the hospital unexpectedly. Practically communist it is.

The idea that there is anything at all socialist about it is laughable. It's the most corporate healthcare proposal ever devised, which isn't a surprise since it was devised by Republicans. All of the parts that were even vaguely socialist (single payer system for example) were quickly excised because they were a threat to the profit margins of drug makers, insurance companies, and other healthcare services. Most of the real cost saving opportunities were lost because the healthcare industry has a lot of lobbyists and a strong desire not to stop the gravy train.

Over here in communist Australia my government health care levy covers myself and about 6 other people for less money than I could insure a family of four in the US. UHC has received bipartisan support in Oz since the right wingers gave up the fight to get rid of it in the late 80's (after it had been running for over a decade), according to numerous polls 80% of voters would now vote against a candidate who tried to fuck with it. Recently a similar scheme for the disabled was instituted with bipartisan support and strong voter approval. Personally I am proud to be part of those schemes in communist Australia.

Seriously, writing "communism" to describe the above state of affairs felt wrong even though I was aiming for sarcasm. Americans already pay about the same per-capita tax on health as Aussies do and have much better economies of scale, but then they have to go out and buy health insurance, wtf? We have statistically superior health outcomes to boot, so someone in the US must be making huge profits from other people's misery, I wonder who?

For an individual to benefit from that corporate income, at some point it has to become their income.

That's terribly inaccurate. Creative minds long ago figured out how to get personal benefit without making it personal income. Large companies have people whose sole job is to find ways to minimize tax liability. Eliminate corporate taxes and these folks won't be fired -- they'll be reassigned to spend all day every day to come up with even more elaborate ways to benefit management without having it be personal income.

If Exxon is going to have the privileges of a person I'd be perfectly willing to let Exxon vote. One vote. The other side of the deal would be that they would also have to accept the responsibilities of a person. Including the death penalty for their many acts of premeditated murder.